Looming Red

I often tell people that I am a consequentialist rather than a conservative. This is not to shy away from Burkean Conservatism, but rather to be more descriptive of what I am trying to conserve. I am a Conservative, a very ardent one. My only argument against Burkean conservatism would be that one cannot be Burkean with socialism because it is the oposite of Republicanism. So, I have to go further than the generic conservative label, that can be understood by anyone to be any and everything.

Were the label of liberal, in the Madisonian tradition, not so mutated to mean its opposite, I would be conservative, conserving classical american liberalism. The label has been long-destroyed by subversive, mal-contents, to where we must bid it adeu. The next label I want to use is Libertarian, because it was originally a replacement for the lost label of liberal. Yet again, I cannot use it, because it has also been captured by reformed leftists, who have come from the dark fiscal side, while holding onto their social permissivism. So much of libertarianism is really just repackaged objectivism which I object to. So, what do I have left?

I come from the direction that the label, at that moment of pinning it on yourself, should be a teaching moment. Conservative is too general to help with this. So, again, what do I call myself? I will not start with hyphenated conservatism, because it implies that there is something that must be modified about conservatism when that is not the case. For instance, one need not attach compassionate to conservative, since letting people hold on to their freedom and inspiring them to make something of themselves is more compassionate than any alternative. So, I am a consequentialist when I am being conservative. That is that best, most descriptive label.

People are born free. They must choose for themselves and between themselves without interference by a third party who cannot point to a direct interest. If I have dealings with a restaurant, a car manufacturer, etc. that do not concern anyone else because it is my life and my money that is doing the dealing, then no one may insert themselves in the middle of this deal to “protect me”. If I a make a bad deal, then I will accept the consequence. I am of sound mind and I am an adult.

This is conservative in the Burkean sense, because history and the civil society tell me what it means to be of “sound mind”. The culture, created over the eons of man’s dealing with man are rules and definitions that are only codified into law after the civil society creates the underlying culture of the laws. The reason, that a conservative must be a social one is that societies are build socially. A conservative smells the foul oder of social subversion a mile off without having to define why, because of the civil society that has taught the conservative.

For me, unfortunately “you’ll know it when you see it” is not enough of a label to fight socialist subversion. You must counter the subversion, because it is aimed at muddying the culture that creates civil societies. Every moment must be a teachable one to counter the muddied culture. I am a conservative and that means consequentialism.

Consequentialism is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, because it’s authors made only reference to natural law, knowing that they were going against the written laws. Those natural laws that were trampled, were consequentialist laws. The king could not simply insert himself into the lives of free men, he needed their representation to do anything with and to them, but also, no matter how much submission he would get from representatives, there were lines that could not be crossed no matter what. All of those lines were consequentialist lines. So many times, people will confuse the montra of “no taxation without representation” as being what the declaration was about. This is just not true, it was about the liberation of individual sovereignty from the state, which is a consequentialist argument in the sense that individual sovereignty is derived from the freedom to deal without interference of third parties.

The constitution is also consequentialist in that it enumerates powers agreed to and reserves the rest of the powers to individuals. The constitution does not grant to the state anymore than individuals granted to it on the day of its ratification. In a says, the constitution is a statement of those powers that relinquished by individuals whom were all free to do so. These enumerated powers relinquished unto the federal government by the individuals whom did so by their natural sovereignty represent a barrier that, when breached, is an intrusion of the sovereign minority of one. State constitutions are this way as well.

If I am a free-roaming creature on the plains of Earth, encountered by others, anything taken from me without my consent through consequentialist dealing is an act of agression. That I am powerless to overcome the agression is no disqualifier that it is still agression. Mandating anything on me where I do not impose my will on others, even if it is seen to be in my best interest, is as much an act of agression as two people taking from one by force.

I am a consequentialist, because I recognize force can only be applied where parties are directly effecting others by their dealings whom have not been involved in the dealings. I am consequentialist, but from now on, maybe I will just say I am a conservative to help the brand be understood as the consequentialism that it must be.